Jones v. The City of Garden City

• Decision Date: 06 November 1909
• Docket Number: 15,984
• Citation: 106 P. 997,81 Kan. 59
• Parties: CHARLES J. JONES, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF GARDEN CITY, Appellee
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

106 P. 997

81 Kan. 59

CHARLES J. JONES, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF GARDEN CITY, Appellee

No. 15,984

Supreme Court of Kansas

November 6, 1909

Decided July, 1909.

Appeal from Finney district court; CHARLES E. LOBDELL, judge pro tem.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. TAX DEEDS -- Statute Permitting Conveyance of More than One Tract -- Time of Taking Effect. Chapter 248 of the Laws of 1889 (Gen. Stat. 1901, § 7677), providing for the transfer of more than one tract of land or lot in a tax deed applies to sales of tracts or lots made before but deeded after the passage of the act, as well as to sales had thereafter.

2. TAX DEEDS -- Statute Permitting Conveyance of More than One Tract -- Time of Taking Effect. Consideration -- Less than Redemption Price. The recital of an amount as the consideration in a tax deed less than the amount for which the tax sale was made, including subsequent taxes paid, interest and costs, does not render the tax deed void.

R. S. Cone, Chauncey C. Brown, Milton Brown, and John F. Switzer, for the appellant.

C. L. Marmon, city attorney, O. H. Foster, Fred J. Evans, and Fred S. Dunn, for the appellee.

OPINION

SMITH, J.:

This action was brought by Charles L. Jones in the district court of Finney county to recover the possession of lot 17, block 1, in Jones's addition to the city of Garden City, Kan. At the time of the action the lot in question had been laid out, or an attempt had been made to lay it out, as a part of a street in Garden City, a city of the second class. It is admitted that Jones held the patent title, and that he is entitled to recover in this action if a tax deed issued for the lot is invalid.

Many questions are raised as to the regularity of the proceedings in laying out the street, but if the tax deed is valid Jones has no interest in the property, and whatever might be the determination upon the questions raised, other than the validity of the tax deed, such determination could not affect this case. Jones must recover, if at all, upon the strength of his own title, and, if he has no title, it matters not to him whether the city has good title or not.

The tax deed recites that in the year 1887 nineteen town lots, two of which were in the original plat of Garden City and the remainder in Jones's addition and Stevens's addition to Garden City, were severally subject to taxation for that year; that the taxes respectively levied thereon remained due and unpaid, and on the 4th day of September, being the first Tuesday of September, 1888, the treasurer of Finney county duly offered such lots severally for public sale, at the county seat, in conformity with the statute; that at the sale one F. Finnup offered to pay the whole amount of taxes, penalty and costs then remaining due and unpaid on each of the lots, which as to each of them was the least quantity bid for, and that each of the lots was severally struck off and sold to him at the price offered; that thereafter, in November, 1891, F. Finnup assigned the several certificates of the sale of the lots, and all his right, title and interest therein, to George W. Finnup; that the subsequent taxes on each of the lots for the years 1888, 1889 and 1890 were paid by the purchaser, and that on the 23d day of June, 1892, the county clerk of Finney county executed and acknowledged the tax deed for all of the lots to George W. Finnup, "in consideration of the sum of one hundred and five dollars and sixty-four cents, taxes, costs and interest in the aggregate, due as aforesaid on said land for the year A. D. 1887, to the treasurer paid as aforesaid." The tax deed was recorded June 24, 1892.

A deed was also introduced in evidence, dated December 22, 1899, from George W. Finnup to the trustees of the Second Baptist church, for lots 17, 18 and 19, block 1, Jones's addition to Garden City, and there was evidence tending to show that the city had by condemnation proceedings appropriated the lot 17 in question for a public street, had paid the condemnation money to the church association, and that the lot had been in possession of the church and of the city.

The plaintiff contends that there is more than one Jones's addition in Garden City, Kan., and for that reason that the description of the lot in the tax deed was insufficient to identify the property. It corresponds, however, exactly...